The Costly Mistake of Overpriced Coaching: A Cautionary Tale for Athletes
Costly Beginnings: Flashy Promises, Generic Templates, and High Prices
In 2023, a young woman with aspirations of becoming a competitive skier sought the guidance of Italian coach, “Dr.” Federico Colli, whose self-promoted credentials and flashy approach promised elite-level expertise (While the title “Dr.” added an air of authority, there appeared to be little evidence to clarify its basis or relevance to his qualifications in sports science or coaching). With no prior experience in competitive skiing, she invested €600 for two mornings of testing in Italy and €2000 for a written training program designed to prepare her for the demands of the sport. On the surface, this seemed like a step in the right direction—partnering with a coach who presented himself as highly qualified, boasting advanced tools and techniques.
However, the reality fell far short of expectations. Beneath the surface of technical jargon, name-dropping, and complex-sounding methods was a process that was all hype and no substance. The testing was incomplete, the program relied on a generic template, and the hefty price tag offered little return on investment. Instead of actionable insights and a tailored training plan, the athlete was left with superficial feedback, a poorly structured program, and more confusion than progress.
This case study critically examines the flaws in the process, exposing the pitfalls of flashy marketing over meaningful results, and offers important lessons for athletes, parents, and coaches on how to discern real expertise from all show and no substance.
Part 1: The Testing—What Was Promised vs. What Was Delivered
Testing is the foundation of any effective training program. It should provide actionable insights by identifying an athlete’s strengths, weaknesses, and readiness, directly informing the design of their program. Unfortunately, the two mornings of testing conducted in Milan fell short of these expectations. Instead of offering precise, practical data to guide training decisions, the testing was characterised by vague observations, throwaway comments, and a lack of depth in key areas.
What Was Tested
1. Intramuscular Coordination:
The testing assessed intramuscular coordination but concluded with vague and generalized feedback, such as a rating of “2/10” and comments on “poor pelvic and shoulder control during sprinting.” The suggested solution of using speed ladder drills failed to address the underlying causes of poor coordination or its specific relevance to skiing. Intramuscular coordination is a critical skill, but it requires targeted, progressive drills that simulate real-world performance, not generic tools with limited applicability.
2. Sprinting Mechanics:
Observations during sprinting focused on inefficiencies like “poor pelvic positioning” and a decline in performance over distance. However, these remarks lacked depth, offering no actionable solutions or technical corrections. Sprinting mechanics, while important for many sports, have limited direct transfer to downhill skiing, which relies more on lateral movement, rotational power, and anaerobic bursts than linear speed. The inclusion of sprinting in the testing seemed misaligned with the athlete’s specific needs, and the feedback provided was too superficial to inform meaningful program adjustments.
3. Jumping Metrics:
The jumping assessments highlighted poor explosiveness and long ground contact times, but the comments, such as “inconsistent acceleration between jumps,” lacked a deeper analysis or direction. There was no explanation of why these issues occurred or how they might relate to the athlete’s skiing performance. For example, drop jump results could have been linked to a lack of strength, mobility, or coordination, but no such connections were made. This left the athlete with raw data but no practical steps to improve.
4. Agility and Lateral Speed:
The testing included lateral speed and agility assessments, noting a decline in quality under fatigue and describing the athlete’s lateral thrust as “decent but not yet powerful.” These observations were overly broad, failing to diagnose specific weaknesses or suggest tailored interventions. For a skier, lateral speed and power are critical, and the testing should have delved deeper into the technical and physical limitations affecting performance. Instead, the feedback consisted of vague descriptors that did little to guide program design.
5. Lactate Circuit:
The lactate circuit aimed to assess fatigue tolerance and coordination but lacked any connection to skiing-specific demands. While the athlete improved her performance slightly on a second trial, the feedback did not explain what aspects of the circuit reflected strengths or areas for improvement. Without relating these results to skiing’s unique energy system requirements, the circuit’s relevance remained unclear.
6. Isoinertial Testing on Space Wheel:
The isoinertial testing evaluated stability and balance in a controlled, disequilibrium environment. Observations like “excessive torso leaning” and “decreased performance over time” pointed to potential weaknesses but were too generic to inform a meaningful plan. Testing on isoinertial machines can offer valuable insights when tied to real-world applications, but here it seemed disconnected from the athlete’s actual skiing needs, leaving the results as isolated observations rather than actionable data.
Summary
While the testing covered several general athletic attributes, such as coordination, speed, agility, and balance, the observations were shallow and disconnected from skiing-specific demands. Comments like “poor pelvic position” and “decent but not yet powerful” sounded technical but failed to provide actionable guidance or deeper insights. The testing lacked the depth, precision, and relevance required to truly inform an effective training program. Instead of identifying root causes or providing solutions, the assessments left the athlete with a collection of surface-level remarks and limited practical value.
What Was Missing
1. Strength Testing (1RM or Submaximal):
Foundational strength assessments, such as 1-repetition maximum (1RM) or submaximal tests for exercises like squats, deadlifts, or presses, were completely absent. These tests are critical for determining an athlete’s baseline strength levels and prescribing appropriate training loads. Without these metrics, it is impossible to develop a progressive strength program tailored to the athlete’s needs. For example, knowing an athlete’s 1RM in the squat could inform load percentages for exercises aimed at building lower-body power—a key requirement for skiing. Furthermore, strength testing provides a benchmark to measure progress over time. Its absence in this testing process indicates a fundamental flaw in understanding how to assess and develop strength effectively.
2. Movement Screening:
No formal assessment of mobility, joint mechanics, or movement imbalances was conducted. For a sport like downhill skiing, where joint stability and range of motion are critical, this omission is particularly glaring. Specific areas such as ankle dorsiflexion, hip rotation, and thoracic spine mobility—all essential for maintaining skiing posture and executing precise movements—were overlooked entirely. A proper movement screening could have identified any mobility restrictions or compensatory patterns that might affect performance or increase the risk of injury. For instance, limited ankle mobility can compromise edge control during turns, while poor hip rotation could hinder fluid directional changes. Without addressing these foundational elements, the athlete is left vulnerable to inefficiencies in movement and potential injury.
3. Rotational Power and Core Strength:
Rotational power and dynamic core stability are fundamental for downhill skiing, where athletes must control rapid changes in direction and maintain balance under high-speed conditions. However, these attributes were not tested. Exercises such as medicine ball rotational throws or Pallof presses could have provided valuable data on the athlete’s ability to generate and resist rotational forces. Core strength assessments, both static (e.g., planks) and dynamic (e.g., anti-rotation drills), would have revealed the athlete’s capacity to stabilize their torso during high-intensity movements. Without these insights, the program could not effectively target one of the most critical aspects of skiing performance—efficient force transfer from the core to the lower body during rapid, multidirectional actions.
4. Energy System Analysis:
Although a lactate circuit was included, no direct tests were performed to assess the athlete’s anaerobic power or aerobic capacity—two key components of skiing performance. Downhill skiing involves short, intense bursts of effort lasting 60-90 seconds, relying heavily on the anaerobic energy system. Tests like the Wingate test, 30-second sprints, or interval-based assessments could have provided insights into the athlete’s ability to generate and sustain power during these bursts. Similarly, aerobic capacity testing, such as a VO2 max or submaximal treadmill test, would have been useful for evaluating recovery efficiency between runs. Without this data, the program could not be tailored to address the specific energy demands of the sport, leaving the athlete underprepared for the physiological rigors of skiing.
summary
The absence of these critical assessments—strength testing, movement screening, rotational power, and energy system analysis—represents a significant oversight in the testing process. These tests are foundational for developing a comprehensive understanding of the athlete’s physical capabilities and designing an effective, tailored training program. Without them, the athlete was left with a superficial evaluation that failed to address the key elements required for success in downhill skiing. This lack of thoroughness undermines the credibility of the testing and raises serious concerns about the program’s ability to deliver meaningful results.
Critical Assessment of the Testing
1. Relevance:
While the inclusion of sprint times and basic jumps may offer some general athletic insights, these tests lacked the specificity required for downhill skiing. Skiing demands lateral power, dynamic balance, core stability, and short anaerobic bursts of energy, none of which were adequately assessed through straight-line sprinting or basic vertical jump tests. Sprinting mechanics, while useful in some sports, have limited applicability to skiing, where quick directional changes and lateral movements dominate. Similarly, box and drop jumps could have been more relevant if tied to skiing-specific movements or if analyzed for power production in lateral or rotational directions. The testing prioritized general athletic metrics over attributes directly related to skiing performance, missing the opportunity to provide actionable and relevant insights.
2. Throwaway Comments:
Observations such as “poor pelvic positioning” during sprints or “decent but not yet powerful” lateral thrust in agility tests were vague, overly general, and lacked depth. These remarks, while appearing technical, offered little value in guiding the athlete’s training. They failed to identify root causes or specify actionable solutions, leaving the athlete with surface-level critiques instead of meaningful feedback. For instance, “poor pelvic positioning” could stem from issues such as weak glute activation, limited hip mobility, or core instability, but no further analysis was provided to explore these possibilities. Similarly, describing lateral thrust as “decent but not yet powerful” fails to pinpoint whether the limitation was due to strength, technique, or another factor. These comments, though sounding professional, lacked substance and failed to connect meaningfully to the athlete’s goals or program design.
3. Actionability:
The data collected during the testing lacked practical application, as it did not translate into clear benchmarks or targeted interventions. For example, while the drop jump analysis identified inefficiencies in acceleration and ground contact time, no specific exercises or progressions were recommended to address these issues. Similarly, observations of declining performance in agility tests under fatigue did not lead to tailored conditioning or recovery strategies. Effective testing should inform the design of a training program by identifying weaknesses and prescribing specific solutions, but this testing process failed to bridge that gap. Instead, the results remained disconnected from the program, leaving the athlete without a roadmap for improvement or measurable outcomes to track progress.
4. Value for Money:
At a cost of €600, the testing delivered minimal actionable value compared to alternative services available at a similar or lower price. Comprehensive testing in professional sports facilities often includes advanced tools such as force plates for analyzing ground reaction forces, motion capture systems for detailed biomechanical analysis, and metabolic assessments for energy system profiling. These methods provide in-depth, quantifiable data that can directly inform program design. In contrast, this testing offered only basic metrics, vague observations, and limited relevance to skiing-specific needs, failing to justify its high price. Athletes paying this amount deserve thorough, insightful evaluations that translate directly into improved performance, not a collection of disconnected data points and superficial remarks.
Summary
The testing process lacked relevance, actionable insights, and value for money, failing to meet the basic requirements of a high-quality assessment. By prioritizing generic metrics over skiing-specific attributes, offering superficial feedback without actionable solutions, and charging a premium price for minimal value, the testing did little to support the athlete’s development. This raises significant concerns about the expertise and methodology of the coach and highlights the importance of choosing testing services that are both comprehensive and directly tied to program design.
Part 2: The Program—A Mismatch for a Beginner Skier
The training program, priced at €2000, spanned several weeks and aimed to develop strength, balance, endurance, and coordination. However, its design was riddled with inefficiencies and a lack of alignment with the athlete’s beginner status.
Key Features of the Program
1. Excessive Volume: The training sessions frequently exceeded 2-3 hours, combining high-volume strength exercises, endurance circuits, and balance drills into a single session. This excessive duration is highly inefficient and counterproductive, particularly for a beginner athlete. Long training sessions can lead to accumulated fatigue, diminishing the quality of performance as the session progresses. For a novice, this approach not only risks poor execution of exercises due to physical exhaustion but also increases the likelihood of overtraining and injury.
The program lacked prioritisation, attempting to cram too many elements—strength, endurance, and balance—into one session rather than focusing on specific, high-impact goals. For a sport like downhill skiing, which requires short bursts of intense effort and recovery, such extended sessions do not align with the sport’s physical demands. Instead, targeted, well-structured sessions lasting 60-90 minutes are more effective at developing strength, power, and endurance while allowing adequate recovery.
Additionally, the high volume without a clear progression plan made the sessions overwhelming for a beginner, potentially leading to mental fatigue and reduced motivation. The lack of efficiency in the session design highlights a critical flaw in the program’s structure, prioritising quantity over quality and failing to deliver the focused, sport-specific training needed for meaningful progress..
2. Advanced Exercises Without Foundations
The program incorporated highly complex movements such as snatches, BOSU drills, and isoinertial training, which require advanced levels of strength, coordination, and technical proficiency. However, these exercises were included without first establishing the athlete’s foundational capabilities. For a beginner skier with no competitive background, these advanced movements are inappropriate and risk poor execution, reinforcing improper movement patterns, or even causing injury.
Snatches, for example, are a technical Olympic lift that demands mobility, stability, and strength across multiple joints. However, the program prescribed insanely high rep ranges (e.g., 4x15 for snatches), which are entirely unsuitable for this movement. Olympic lifts are meant to develop explosive power and require precise execution, typically performed in low rep ranges (e.g., 1-3 reps) to maintain form and avoid fatigue. Prescribing such high volume for a beginner increases the likelihood of poor technique, which not only diminishes the lift’s effectiveness but also elevates the risk of injury.
Similarly, BOSU and isoinertial training exercises are often utilized to refine balance and proprioception, but these tools are most effective when layered on top of an established base of functional strength and stability. For a beginner, skipping the foundational phase of training and jumping straight into advanced drills is counterproductive. The combination of complex exercises with excessive repetitions highlights a lack of understanding of effective programming and the athlete’s developmental needs. This approach not only undermines performance gains but also jeopardises long-term progress and safety.
3. Lack of Progression
The program failed to adhere to one of the most fundamental principles of effective training: progressive overload. Exercises lacked specific intensity guidelines, such as percentages of one-repetition maximums (1RM), making it impossible to systematically increase load or track improvements over time. Instead, the same sets and reps were repeated across sessions, with no adjustments to load, volume, or complexity.
Progression is critical for driving physiological adaptations. For example, increasing the weight lifted in a squat over time builds strength, while progressively reducing ground contact time in plyometric exercises develops explosive power. Without these incremental challenges, the athlete’s performance will stagnate, rendering the program ineffective. For a beginner, the absence of a structured progression not only limits development but also risks creating confusion and frustration, as there is no clear path toward measurable improvement.
4. Overemphasis on Balance
Balance training played an outsized role in the program, with exercises like BOSU work, slackline drills, and other stability-focused activities dominating sessions. While balance is important for skiing, particularly for maintaining control on uneven terrain, these exercises were overemphasised at the expense of more impactful training modalities. Activities performed on unstable surfaces often fail to translate effectively to real-world performance improvements unless paired with strength and power work.
In skiing, dynamic balance and stability are developed through explosive, sport-specific movements, such as lateral bounds, resisted lateral sprints, or single-leg strength exercises. These were largely absent from the program, which instead focused on static or slow-tempo balance drills. While these tools can have value as supplementary exercises, they should not form the core of a program. For a beginner, prioritising balance drills without addressing foundational strength and power is inefficient and fails to build the capacities most relevant to skiing performance.
5. Minimal Ski-Specific Conditioning
The program fell significantly short in addressing the unique physiological and technical demands of downhill skiing. Key aspects of skiing performance, such as edge control, reaction time, and anaerobic bursts, were largely ignored. Downhill skiing requires short, intense bursts of effort lasting 60-90 seconds, where anaerobic capacity and the ability to recover quickly are paramount. These energy demands were not adequately reflected in the program’s conditioning components.
Instead, the program included long-duration cardio and circuits that did not mimic skiing’s specific intensity patterns. For example, interval-based high-intensity anaerobic conditioning (e.g., 6x60-second sprints with 2 minutes of recovery) would have been far more relevant than the lactate circuit that was included. Additionally, reaction time and edge control could have been trained through dynamic drills, such as lateral change-of-direction exercises or simulated ski edging movements, none of which were incorporated. By failing to address these critical skills, the program missed an opportunity to prepare the athlete for the real-world challenges of skiing.
This program fell short in multiple key areas due to its over-reliance on advanced exercises without foundational preparation, lack of progression, excessive focus on balance, and minimal attention to skiing-specific conditioning. For a beginner skier, a more effective program would have focused on building foundational strength, explosive power, and anaerobic capacity, with a clear progression plan to track improvement over time. By emphasizing the wrong priorities, the program failed to deliver meaningful results or value for its high price point.
Critical Assessment of the Program
• Efficiency: The training sessions were excessively long, often lasting over two to three hours, which is both inefficient and impractical for most athletes, particularly beginners. This extended duration diluted the overall quality of the training as fatigue inevitably set in, compromising exercise performance and increasing the risk of injury. Instead of prioritizing high-impact exercises like squats, deadlifts, or power movements that directly improve skiing performance, the program included an overabundance of accessory work. Activities such as BOSU drills, balance exercises, and static core routines dominated the sessions, taking time and energy away from foundational strength and power development. For a sport like downhill skiing, where explosive power, lateral strength, and anaerobic endurance are critical, such an unfocused approach hinders meaningful progress. The inclusion of excessive accessory exercises without clear prioritization or integration into the broader training objectives ultimately made the sessions counterproductive.
• Specificity: The program’s heavy reliance on advanced drills and balance tools, such as BOSU ball exercises, slackline training, and isoinertial machines, lacked alignment with both the athlete’s beginner status and the specific demands of downhill skiing. These tools and methods, while potentially valuable for elite athletes or those with a well-established strength and mobility foundation, were inappropriate for a novice. The athlete needed a program rooted in fundamental strength, power, and mobility development, yet the focus was skewed toward exercises that prioritised complexity over practicality.
Moreover, the chosen drills did little to simulate the physical realities of skiing, such as rapid edge changes, rotational power, or the anaerobic bursts required during downhill runs. Instead, the balance tools and static exercises consumed valuable training time without adequately addressing the key performance attributes needed for skiing success. For a beginner, this misalignment not only hindered progress but also risked creating unnecessary frustration or confusion due to the program’s lack of relevance to her goals and skill level. Specificity is a cornerstone of effective training, and this program failed to deliver exercises or progressions tailored to the athlete’s unique starting point and end objective.
• Value for Money: The program provided was a static, generic template that lacked the essential elements of a high-value service, such as personalisation, progress tracking, or meaningful follow-up. For €2000, the athlete received what appeared to be a one-size-fits-all plan, devoid of the necessary customisation to address her beginner status, unique physical attributes, or specific skiing goals. Programs at this price point should deliver individualised solutions based on comprehensive assessments, yet this program failed to meet even the most basic standards of tailored training. Without any form of ongoing support, updates, or adjustments to accommodate the athlete’s progress, the €2000 price tag is both excessive and unjustifiable.
The program’s inefficiency, lack of specificity, and failure to provide value for money highlight significant flaws in its design and execution. With excessively long sessions, an overemphasis on advanced tools unsuitable for a beginner, and a static template lacking customisation or follow-up, the program fell far short of its €2000 price tag. Effective training should prioritise the athlete’s unique needs, align with their skill level, and deliver measurable progress, none of which this program achieved.
Part 3: Lessons Learned
1. Testing Must Inform Training:
• Effective testing should identify specific weaknesses and guide the design of a program. Missing foundational assessments (e.g., strength testing, mobility screening) leaves the program designer guessing.
2. Beginner Athletes Need Simplicity:
• For a novice skier, the focus should be on foundational strength, mobility, and anaerobic conditioning. Advanced tools and techniques, like BOSU drills, are unnecessary until basic skills are mastered.
3. Value is Key:
• High prices should reflect high-quality, individualized services. Generic programs at premium rates erode trust and hinder progress.
Part 4: What Should Have Been Done
For €2600, the process should have included:
1. Comprehensive Testing:
• 1RM or submaximal strength tests.
• Mobility screening for key joints.
• Lateral power tests (e.g., bounds, med ball throws).
• Anaerobic capacity assessments (e.g., Wingate test, 30s sprints).
2. Tailored Program:
• Phase 1: Foundational strength and mobility.
• Phase 2: Ski-specific power and anaerobic conditioning.
• Phase 3: On-snow preparation with reaction drills and edge-control exercises.
3. Ongoing Support:
• Regular progress checks and program adjustments based on testing and feedback.
Here’s a revised section for the blog with an emphasis on verifying credentials:
Part 5: Why Verifying Credentials Matters
When choosing a coach or specialist, especially in high-performance sports, verifying their credentials is essential. The use of professional titles such as “Dr.” can create an impression of expertise, but it’s critical to confirm the qualifications behind such titles.
In the case of Federico Colli, often referred to as “Dr.,” there is no verifiable evidence that he holds a doctorate in sports science, coaching, or a related field. While he appears to have experience in skiing and coaching, the use of “Dr.” without a clear justification may mislead clients into believing he has a higher level of academic or professional expertise than is substantiated.
Why This Matters
• Trust and Credibility: Athletes place significant trust in their coaches, especially when paying premium fees. Misleading titles can erode that trust if the promised expertise isn’t delivered.
• Quality of Service: True expertise—whether earned through formal education, certifications, or experience—directly impacts the quality of the training and results.
• Empowering Clients: Understanding the importance of verified qualifications helps athletes and parents make informed decisions when selecting professionals to guide their development.
Tips for Verifying Credentials
1. Ask Directly: Don’t hesitate to ask a coach or trainer for details about their qualifications, certifications, and experience.
2. Check Accrediting Bodies: Confirm that certifications or titles are recognized by reputable institutions (e.g., sports federations, universities).
3. Look for Transparency: Professionals who are clear and upfront about their background are often the most trustworthy.
This situation serves as a reminder that flashy titles or high fees don’t always translate to high-quality services. By prioritising transparency and verified expertise, athletes can avoid costly mistakes and focus on meaningful progress.
Conclusion
Dr. Federico Colli’s approach reveals a troubling disregard for basic fundamental training principles and a reliance on a generic, one-size-fits-all program template. The lack of foundational programming, proper progression, and alignment with the athlete’s specific needs highlights critical gaps in both testing and program design. This case serves as a reminder for aspiring athletes to critically evaluate training services, demand transparency, and prioritise programs that are individualised and evidence-based, rather than flashy templates devoid of substance.
For coaches, this is a call to action: do better. Adhering to core principles like progression, specificity, and individualization is not optional—it’s essential. Athletes deserve programs that reflect their unique goals, skill levels, and developmental needs, not generic plans cloaked in technical jargon and poorly applied techniques.
If you’re seeking a program grounded in fundamental training principles and tailored to your specific needs, reach out for expert, personalised advice.
